the last report we'll look at today is on New Residential Construction for January from the Census Bureau, which includes estimate for permits issued, housing starts and home completions, and about which we've previously noted a large margin of error that goes unreported in the media and blog coverage...the building permits data is reported in a fairly close range, however, as they report permits issued at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 925,000, which was "1.8 percent (±0.9%) above the revised December rate of 909,000" and "35.2 percent (±1.5%) above the January 2012 estimate of 684,000"...however, when we check housing starts, reported at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 890,000, we see they're also reported as "8.5 percent (±11.3%)* below the revised December estimate of 973,000’, and "23.6 percent (±13.4%) above the January 2012 rate of 720,000", and we're referred by the asterisk to the footnote which explains that since the range for the month contains zero, the results aren't statistically significant, and that the "Census Bureau does not have sufficient statistical evidence to conclude that the actual change is different from zero"...proper reporting on new housing starts for January should read that census is 90% confident that new home starts in January were at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of between 789,430 and 990,570, and although it’s quite clear that new housing starts are well above those of a year ago, census can't say for sure if they’re up a little over 10% or as much as 37%….the adjacent chart from Zero Hedge accompanies their report alleging that the seasonally adjusted census data is on housing starts is showing larger increases over time than the unadjusted data…since they dont link to the data, and monthly archived data is difficult to check, we’re noting it as a curious difference of opinion between ZH and the Census…one possibility that comes to mind that could cause an error like that is that seasonal adjustment algorithms are heavily weighted to data patterns of the past 5 years, and that housing starts peaked in early 2006 at a rate of over 2.2 million and bottomed late in 2009 below 500,000…that would mean that seasonal adjustments in late 2010, where the ZH chart starts, took in much more of the housing starts peak, and seasonal adjustments for recent months are being compared to more of the data from the home construction bust…

(the above is my weekly commentary that accompanied my sunday morning links emailing, which in turn was mostly selected from my weekly blog post on the global glass onion, and also includes other links of interest…if you’d be interested in getting my weekly emailing of selected links that accompanies these commentaries, most coming from the aforementioned GGO posts, contact me…)

Tuesday, February 19, 2013

http://www.learnstuff.com/climate-change/
Thanks to extensive research and noticeable changes in weather and
storm prevalence, it’s getting harder to turn a blind eye to the reality
of climate change.
Since the Industrial Age spurred the increasing usage of fossil fuels
for energy production, the weather has been warming slowly. In fact,
since 1880, the temperature of the earth has increased by 1 degree
Celsius.
Although 72% of media outlets report on global warming with a
skeptical air, the overwhelming majority of scientists believe that the
extreme weather of the last decade is at least partially caused by
global warming. Some examples of climate calamities caused partly by
global warming include:

Hurricane Katrina

Drought in desert countries

Hurricane Sandy

Tornadoes in the Midwest

These storms, droughts, and floods are causing death and economic
issues for people all over the world – many of whom cannot afford to
rebuild their lives from the ground up after being wiped out by a
tsunami or other disaster.
Evidence also indicates that the face of the Earth is changing
because of warming trends. The ice caps of the Arctic are noticeably
shrinking, the ice cap of Mt. Kilimanjaro alone has shrunk by 85% in the
last hundred years, and the sea levels are rising at the rate of about 3
millimeters per year because of all the melting ice. Climate change is
also affecting wildlife – for instance, Arctic polar bears are at risk
of losing their environment; the Golden Toad has gone extinct; and the
most adaptable species are evolving into new versions capable of
withstanding warmer water.
Despite some naysayers with alternative theories about why global
temperatures are rising – including the idea that the earth goes through
natural temperature cycles every few millennia – the dramatic changes
in the earth’s atmospheric makeup suggests humans are to blame. In fact,
97% of scientists agree humans are responsible for climate change.
Since the Industrial Revolution, carbon dioxide levels increased 38%
because of humans, methane levels have increased 148%, nitrous oxide is
up 15% – and the list goes on and on, all because of human-instigated production, manufacturing, and organizations and individuals
work hard to promote an Earth-friendly existence, resistance to change
is rampant and actions are slow. For instance, while the US
Environmental Protection Agency is still working on collecting data to
support development of greenhouse gas reduction expectations for
businesses, most of their efforts feel more like pre-research than
actual change. Other countries have made efforts – such as signing to
Kyoto Protocol to reduce their 1990 emission levels by 18% by 2020 – but
the only solution will require the whole world band together.
Steps anyone can take to reduce global warming include:

Driving a car with good gas mileage, or investing in a hybrid or electric car

Switching from incandescent light bulbs to CFL or LED

Insulating your home and stocking it with energy efficient appliances

Recycling

Using green power available in your area

Check out the infographic below to see what else the gender wage gap affects.

(the above is my weekly commentary that accompanied my sunday morning links emailing, which in turn was mostly selected from my weekly blog post on the global glass onion, and also includes other links of interest…if you’d be interested in getting my weekly emailing of selected links that accompanies these commentaries, most coming from the aforementioned GGO posts, contact me…)

(the above is my weekly commentary that accompanied my sunday morning links emailing, which in turn was mostly selected from my weekly blog post on the global glass onion, and also includes other links of interest…if you’d be interested in getting my weekly emailing of selected links that accompanies these commentaries, most coming from the aforementioned GGO posts, contact me…)

(the above is my weekly commentary that accompanied my sunday morning links emailing, which in turn was mostly selected from my weekly blog post on the global glass onion, and also includes other links of interest…if you’d be interested in getting my weekly emailing of selected links that accompanies these commentaries, most coming from the aforementioned GGO posts, contact me…)

note on the graphs used here

in March a year ago the St Louis Fed, home to the FRED graphs, changed their graphs to an interactive format, which apparently necessitated eliminating some of the incompatible options which we had used in creating our static graphs before then...as a result, many of the FRED graphs we've included on this website previous to that date, all of which were all created and stored at the FRED site and which we'd always hyperlinked back there, were reformatted, which in many cases changed our bar graphs to line graphs, and some cases rendered them unreadable... however, you can still click the text links we've always used in referring to them to view versions of our graphs as interactive graphs on the FRED site, or in the case where an older graph has gone missing, click on the blank space where it had been in order to view it in the new format....